DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/09/2026 have been considered but some of them are not persuasive.
Specifically, on pages 9-10, Applicant argues that,
Referring to the Response to Arguments section, the Office Action appears to broadly interpret the term "a level of an examination" as "some details of examination".
Based on this broad interpretation, the Office has determined that the pathological conditions of a lesion, such as size and color (disclosed in paragraph [0075] of Liao), or the name/type of a disease, and the equipment or medicine used (disclosed in paragraph [0083] of Liao) correspond to the predetermined specific term indicating a level of an examination, recited in the present claims. However, this interpretation is clearly different from the meaning of "the level of the examination" in the present application. To further clarify and establish this difference over Liao, Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite that "the predetermined specific term is a term indicating a type of sample that an examinee swallows, or a term indicating a type of posture taken by the examinee".
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claim recites “the predetermined specific term including a term indicating a type of sample that an examinee swallows, or a term indicating a type of posture taken by the examinee”. Thus, such a predetermined specific term is reasonably interpreted as non-functional descriptive information. As such, at least in [0077] and [0098], Liao clearly teaches the voice to include descriptive information for the images. Such “descriptive information” can be determined by the user including “a term indicating a type of sample that an examinee swallows, or a term indicating a type of posture taken by the examinee” as long as to the operator, such a term is suitable for descriptive information.
Further, Examiner respectfully submits that adding Wada reference in the rejections of the claims was a typo. Thus, removing Wada from the rejections is not a change in ground of rejections because Wada was not relied upon to teach any claimed limitation.
On page 10, Applicant argues that,
“Further, in Liao, the voiced input information is considered to be associated with a currently displayed image. In contrast, claims 1, 10 and 11, as amended, recite that the relevant information acquired within a predetermined period before and after the timing of occurrence of the voice is associated with the extracted plurality of radiation images”.
In response, Examiner respectfully submits that the arguments are moot in view of a new ground of rejections (see details below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2020/0371744 A1 – hereinafter Liao), Jhawar et al. (US 2019/0205340 A1 – hereinafter Jhawar), and Sakano (WO 2023/145405 A1 – hereinafter Sakano, references to machine translated copy attached).
Regarding claim 1, Liao discloses an information processing apparatus (Fig. 1; [0071] – system 100) comprising at least one processor ([0076]; Fig. 1 – controller 120), wherein the at least one processor is configured to: acquire a series of radiation images captured by performing continuous irradiation with radiation ([0068]-[0069]; [0071]; [0074] – acquiring video images using a radiographic imaging device, thus implying, the images are captured by performing continuous irradiation with radiation); generate, in a case in which a voice uttered during an imaging period of the series of radiation images is a specific voice, image specification information for specifying a radiation image selected from among the series of radiation images according to a timing of occurrence of the voice ([0075] – generating, based on an oral description to a displayed image in real-time during examination, information to specify a target image from the video images); extract a plurality of radiation images from the series of radiation images with the radiation image specified by the image specification information as a starting point or an ending point ([0077] – extracting images according to a first voice command and a last voice command); generate a data file including the extracted some radiation images ([0077] – generating a data file including the extracted images as medical records to be stored in the storage); acquire, in a case in which the voice includes a predetermined specific term indicating a level of an examination, information regarding the level of the examination indicated by the term as relevant information related to imaging content of the series of radiation images, the predetermined specific term including a term indicating a type of sample that an examinee swallows, or a term indicating a type of posture taken by the examinee ([0075]; [0083];[0101] – acquiring, in a case in which the voice includes a text command or oral description with terms indicating a descriptive information to the displayed image as determined by the user, as such including “a term indicating a type of sample that an examinee swallows, or a term indicating a type of posture taken by the examinee” if the user feels the terms as suitable as descriptive information); and generate a data file in which the relevant information and the some radiation images are associated with each other ([0075]; [0077] – generating a data file including the extracted images and relevant information).
However, Liao does not disclose the voice is uttered by an examinee; and the processor configured to associate the image specification information with the series of radiation images; and the relevant information is acquired within a predetermined period before and after the timing of occurrence of the voice.
Jhawar discloses a processor configured to associate image specification information with a series of images ([0065]; Fig. 6 – a processor associates an image descriptive information to a series of images in the video using a timestamp).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Jhawar into the apparatus taught by Liao to allow the user to quickly navigate to the point of interest of the video if a review of the video is needed.
Liao and Jhawar do not disclose the relevant information is acquired within a predetermined period before and after the timing of occurrence of the voice.
Sakano discloses relevant information is acquired within a predetermined period before and after a timing of occurrence of a voice (page 7 – “when the voice command determination unit 116 detects a voice command by detecting an utterance that matches a preset voice command by a first threshold or more, the recording control unit 122 determines that the voice command is Captured data for a predetermined period before and after the detected time is saved as event data”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Sakano into the apparatus taught by Liao and Jhawar to ensure that the relevant information is captured with a complete context.
Regarding claim 2, Liao in view of Jhawar and Sakano also discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the specific voice is an uttered voice including a specific word ([0083]).
Regarding claim 3, Liao in view of Jhawar and Sakano also discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the specific voice is a specific biological sound ([0083] – Examiner interprets “biological sound” as sound produced by a living organism.).
Regarding claim 4, Liao in view of Jhawar and Sakano as discussed in claim 1 above also discloses the at least one processor is configured to: generate a plurality of pieces of the image specification information based on a plurality of voices uttered intermittently during the imaging period of the series of radiation images ([0103]; Fig. 6A); and associate the plurality of pieces of image specification information with the series of radiation images (Jhawar: [0065]; Fig. 6).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Jhawar into the apparatus has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Liao in view of Jhawar and Sakano also discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to display a time position of the radiation image specified by the image specification information in a video composed of the series of radiation images (Figs. 8-9).
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above in view of Liao also disclosing a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing at least one processor included in an information processing apparatus to execute the recited steps (Fig. 1; [0076]; [0084] – storage means 122 storing programs for causing controller 124 included in apparatus 100 to execute the recited steps).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao, Jhawar, and Sakano as applied to claims 1-5 and 10-11 above, and further in view of Barral et al. (US 2019/0110856 A1 – hereinafter Barral).
Regarding claim 6, see the teachings of Liao, Jhawar, and Sakano as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Liao, Jhawar, and Sakano do not disclose the at least one processor is configured to change the image specification information based on a change operation of a time position of the radiation image specified by the image specification information in a video composed of the series of radiation images.
Barral discloses at least one processor is configured to change image specification information based on a change operation of a time position of an image specified by the image specification information in a video composed of the series of images ([0059]; Fig. 5 – a processor edits the position of a bookmark by selecting and dragging the bookmark to a new location along a timeline of a moving image).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Barral into the apparatus taught by Liao, Jhawar, and Sakano to correct the position of the tags if desired, thus enhancing the user interface of the apparatus.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao, Jhawar, and Sakano as applied to claims 1-5 and 10-11 above, and further in view of Scheib et al. (US 2022/0375620 A1 – hereinafter Scheib).
Regarding claim 7, see the teachings of Liao, Jhawar, and Sakano as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Liao, Jhawar, and Sakano do not disclose the at least one processor is configured to: acquire a series of optical images; and play back each of a radiation video composed of the series of radiation images and an optical video composed of the series of optical images such that images at the same time point are displayed.
Scheib discloses at least one processor is configured to: acquire a series of optical images that are continuously captured in parallel with the capturing of the series of radiation images (Fig. 2; [0044]; [0047]-[0048]) that are continuously captured in parallel with the capturing of the series of radiation images ([0159]; [0161] – primary imaging using a color camera is performed continuously in parallel with capturing of x-ray images using supplemental imaging); and play back each of a radiation video composed of the series of radiation images and an optical video composed of the series of optical images such that images at the same time point are displayed (Figs. 12-13; [0019]-[0020]; [0161]; [0174]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Scheib into the apparatus taught by Liao, Jhawar, and Sakano to provide the user with different perspectives of viewing thus facilitating manipulation of examining tools during examination.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao, Jhawar, and Sakano as applied to claims 1-5 and 10-11 above, and further in view of Freed et al. (US 2004/0034396 A1 – hereinafter Freed).
Regarding claim 12, see the teachings of Liao, Jhawar, and Sakano as discussed in claim 3 above.
However, Liao, Jhawar, and Sakano do not disclose the specific biological sound includes a swallowing sound uttered by the examinee swallowing a sample.
Freed discloses a specific biological sound includes a swallowing sound uttered by the examinee swallowing a sample ([0053]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Freed into the apparatus taught by Liao, Jhawa, and Sakano in order to successfully detect and process more types of biological sounds.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thai Q Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
